Chapter 14

Cross-linguistic interactions
in L2 word meaning inference in English
as a foreign language

Keiko Koda and Ryan T. Miller

Carnegie Mellon University, U.S.A / Kent State University, U.S.A.

L2 reading entails a complex cross-linguistic interaction between L1 reading

ability and L2 linguistic knowledge. As such, it is seen as a dynamic process of
coalescing diverse resources, including cognitive skills, linguistic knowledge, and
metalinguistic awareness, in two languages. In this chapter, we explain the nature
of morphological awareness as an abstract, yet language-dependent, construct.
We then analyze systematic variations in grapheme-morpheme relationships
in typologically different languages. Based on the analysis, we propose specific
predictions regarding the joint contributions of L1 reading and L2 resources to
the development and utilization of L2 morphological awareness. We report a
summary of a study addressing the relative contributions of L1 reading ability,
L2 morphological awareness and L2 linguistic knowledge to L2 word meaning
inference.

Keywords: cross-linguistic interaction, L1 influence, L2 proficiency, word

meaning inference, morphological awareness, L2 knowledge

As a process of text meaning construction, reading heavily relies on knowledge of

word meanings. It entails retrieving word meanings from memory and integrating
them into a coherent message intended by the author. Successful comprehension
demands both effortless access to the meaning of familiar words and the ability to
infer the meaning of unfamiliar words through word form analysis. Metalinguistic
awareness, an explicit representation of the abstract structure of language, provides
vital assistance in word form analysis. As abstract insight, metalinguistic awareness
enables readers to segment a familiar word into its phonological and morpho-
logical constituents, and in so doing, allows them to identify familiar sub-lexical
elements in the unfamiliar word and use them to infer its pronunciation and
meaning (Ehri, 2014). Metalinguistic awareness emerges through detecting and

doi 10.1075/bpa.7.14kod
© 2018 John Benjamins Publishing Company
294 Keiko Koda and Ryan T. Miller

abstracting structural regularities of words implicit in linguistic input. Once suf-

ficient abstraction is achieved, metalinguistic awareness serves as a powerful tool
for “self-teaching” words during reading (e.g., Share, 2008).
Over the past two decades, metalinguistic awareness has attracted consider-
able attention among second language (L2) reading researchers. As an abstract
representation, metalinguistic awareness is distinct from linguistic knowledge in
that it is relatively independent of surface form variation. In principle, therefore,
once formed in one language, metalinguistic awareness is serviceable in another
language as a cross-linguistically sharable resource. A central question is to what
extent first language (L1) metalinguistic awareness facilitates L2 word reading and
learning. A large number of studies have investigated the utility of L1 phonological
awareness in L2 reading development. The cumulative evidence suggests that L1
phonological awareness makes intra-lingual and inter-lingual contributions to L2
word reading in bilingual children learning to read two languages; that phonolog-
ical awareness is systematically related between two alphabetic languages; and that
the utility of L1 phonological awareness is relatively unaffected by L2 proficiency
(Abu-Rabia, 1995; Da Fontoura & Siegel, 1995; Durgunoglu, Nagy, & Hancin, 1993;
Geva & Siegel, 2000; Gholamain & Geva, 1999; Wade-Woolley & Geva, 2000; Wang,
Perfetti, & Liu, 2005).
Of late, interest in morphological awareness is escalating. As the smallest func-
tioning unit of a language, morphemes convey rule-governed grammatical infor-
mation and arbitrarily assigned functional information. Morphological awareness,
as their abstract representation, comprises, at the minimum, the internal structure
of words, rules of morpheme concatenation, and functional constraints on the
concatenation rules. Morphological awareness is more varied and language-specific
and as such, less independent of linguistic knowledge than phonological aware-
ness. The linguistic dependency makes morphological awareness harder to acquire
and more susceptible to language-specific formal variation. A clear implication
for L2 reading development is that the utility of L1 morphological awareness is
constrained by both L2 linguistic knowledge and structural similarity between two
languages. To clarify the linguistic dependency of morphological awareness and its
implication, the sections that follow describe (a) the role of morphological aware-
ness in reading acquisition, (b) cross-linguistic variation, (c) the mechanisms of
cross-linguistic sharing, and (d) the utility of L1 morphological awareness in L2
reading development.
 Chapter 14. Cross-linguistic interaction in L2 word meaning inference 295

Morphological awareness and reading acquisition

Word reading entails grapheme-phoneme-morpheme mappings. In learning to

read, children rely on emerging sensitivity to a word’s internal structure to figure
out how phonemes and morphemes are mapped onto the graphic symbols that
encode them (Ehri, 2014; Frost, 2012; Nunes & Bryant 2006). Each instance of
word reading contributes to the formation of a representation of a word in mem-
ory. Durable and complete representations of words allow children to read them
instantly and effortlessly from memory (Share, 2008). Morphological awareness
plays a significant role in grapheme-morpheme mappings in unfamiliar word read-
ing. Through its capacity for word segmentation, morphological awareness enables
children to infer the sound and meaning of an unfamiliar word based on the infor-
mation supplied by its morphological constituents. Morphological decomposition
is particularly critical in later stages of reading development in which knowledge
acquisition occurs through reading and word learning. Because most of the words
children learn in the “reading to learn” stages are multi-morphemic, the ability to
use morphological awareness for word form analysis during reading is a reliable
predictor of successful reading achievement (Ehri, 2014; Ku & Anderson, 2003).
Morphological awareness develops gradually over time as its diverse facets
mature at disparate rates following their own timetables. English-speaking children,
for example, are sensitized to inflectional morphemes in structurally transparent
words well before schooling (Berko, 1958; Carlisle, 2003), but the productive use of
such sensitivity does not occur until Grades 2 or 3 (Bear, Invernizzi, Templeton, &
Johnston, 1996). The awareness of derivational morphemes develops over a longer
period of time – between Grades 4 and 8 (Tyler & Nagy, 1989, 1990; Ku & Anderson,
2003). Studies have shown that morphological awareness is a reliable indicator of
reading ability. Skilled readers, for example, are more sensitive to a word’s morpho-
logical structure than less skilled readers (e.g., Chilant & Caramazza, 1995; Fowler
& Liberman, 1995; Stolz & Feldman, 1995; Taft, 1991, 1994; Taft & Zhu, 1991, 1995).
Children with poor reading ability commit far more errors of affix omissions in
their writing and speaking (e.g., Duques, 1989; Rubin, 1991). Children’s ability
to spell inflectional morphemes is a reliable predictor of their ability to infer the
meaning of morphologically complex words (Nunes, Bryant, & Bindman, 2006).
The efficient use of morphological information, moreover, distinguishes competent
and less competent high-school readers (e.g., Tyler & Nagy, 1989, 1990). Thus, in
short, morphological awareness is a critical component of reading that supports
word recognition, word meaning inference, and text comprehension.
296 Keiko Koda and Ryan T. Miller

Cross-linguistic variation in morphological awareness

Morphological awareness reflects the grapheme-phoneme-morpheme relationships

in a particular writing system. For example, the English orthography is alphabetic
in nature, and generally bound by phonemic constraints. However, its strong ten-
dency to preserve morphological information allows phonemic constituents to
account for its orthographic conventions only partially. As an illustration, distinct
orthographic patterns are used to differentiate two unrelated morphemes sharing
the same pronunciation, such as “sale” and “sail.” Conversely, shared morphemes
are spelled identically despite their distinct pronunciations, as in “anxious/anxiety”
and “electric/electricity,” or the past tense marker “-ed“ (e.g., /-d/ in moved, /-t/ in
talked, /-ɪd/ in visited).
In contrast, Hebrew is a root-derived language and a word’s base is a root mor-
pheme. Root morphemes generally consist of three consonants (e.g., gdl) that con-
vey abstract semantic information (e.g., “largeness”). Hebrew words are formed by
intertwining root morphemes with word-pattern morphemes. Each word-pattern
morpheme comprises built-in slots for the root’s consonants to fit into. The Hebrew
orthography encodes root morphemes, certain vowels (represented by letters that
can also stand for consonants), as well as consonants that appear in patterns, pre-
fixes, and suffixes. Reflecting the grapheme-morpheme-consonant linkages, chil-
dren learning to read Hebrew are known to develop strong sensitivity to consonants
(Geva, 2008; Tolchinsky & Teberosky, 1998). In contrast, studies involving skilled
readers have shown that lexical knowledge and sensitivity to the morphological
structure are strong predictors of word recognition efficiency (Feldman, Frost, &
Pnini 1995; Frost, 2012; Frost, Katz, & Bentin, 1987). These findings suggest that
Hebrew readers rely on solid lexical representations and metalinguistic structural
understanding when supplying the unspecified information in graphemes during
print word recognition.
In morphosyllabic Chinese, most characters map directly onto morphemes.
The vast majority of characters (80 to 90%) are composite characters consisting
of two graphic components called radicals. While a phonetic radical indicates the
pronunciation of its character, a semantic radical conveys the semantic category of
its character’s meaning. Thus, in Chinese, morphological information is encoded
by both a character and its semantic radical. Because of this dual-level encoding,
character recognition entails information retrieval both at the character and rad-
ical levels. Research has shown that skilled readers are capable of such parallel
information processing during character recognition (Taft & Zhu, 1995; Zhou &
Marslen-Wilson, 1994). Although radical information is insufficient for character
meaning retrieval, studies demonstrate that Chinese readers draw on semantic
 Chapter 14. Cross-linguistic interaction in L2 word meaning inference 297

radical information when encountering an unfamiliar character in context (e.g.,

Ku & Anderson, 2003; Shu, Anderson, & Zhang, 1995).
In addition, Chinese word formation heavily relies on lexical compounding.
According to the Dictionary of Usage Frequency of Modern Chinese Words (Beijing
Language Institute, 1986), roughly 80% of Chinese words are compounds consist-
ing of two or more characters. The formation of multi-character compound words
is bound to certain concatenation rules. For example, in the two-character word
猪肉 (pork), the first character 猪 (pig) modifies the second character 肉 (meat).
It has been reported that frequency of the component characters in a compound
word affects recognition speed and accuracy among native Chinese readers (Zhang
& Peng, 1992) and Chinese-English bilinguals (Wang, Lin & Gao, 2010). Recent
studies have shown that a grasp of the semantic relationship between the compo-
nent characters in a compound word is a significant predictor of word knowledge
development (Chen, Hao, Geva, Zhu, & Shu, 2009; Liu & McBride-Chang, 2010).
Collectively, these findings suggest that word reading and learning entail morpho-
logical decomposition, and that morphological awareness plays a central role in
reading and word knowledge development in Chinese.
Viewed as a whole, studies involving readers of diverse languages demonstrate
that morphological awareness is highly language-specific, reflecting the grapheme-
morpheme relationships in the language in which reading is learned. Yet, mor-
phological awareness plays an equally central role in word reading and learning in
typologically diverse languages.

Cross-linguistic sharing of metalinguistic awareness

Recent psycholinguistic theories hold that linguistic knowledge emerges from ab-
stracting structural regularities that are implicit in input (Ellis, 2002; Tomasello,
2003). In this view of learning, language is seen as a set of relations between forms
and functions (Van Valin, 1991), and its acquisition as the internalization of those
relationships through cumulative experience of mappings between corresponding
forms and functions (MacWhinney & Bates, 1989). The more frequently a particular
pattern of mappings is experienced, the stronger the links holding the correspond-
ing elements together. Learning thus involves a gradual transition from deliberate
execution to effortless access to emerging representations of the form-function
relationships in memory. The internalization of a particular form-function rela-
tionship can be recognized as such when the activation of the mapping it entails
becomes automated (Logan, 1988).
298 Keiko Koda and Ryan T. Miller

Under this view of learning, cross-linguistic sharing can be conceptualized as

automatic activation of previously established (L1) mapping patterns triggered by
language input in a later acquired (L2) language (Koda, 2007). L1 mapping occurs
regardless of the learner’s intent (non-volitional), and its occurrence cannot be eas-
ily controlled (non-selective). The conceptualization presupposes that L2 mappings
emerge from cross-linguistic interactions between automatically activated L1 map-
pings and L2 linguistic input, that the shared patterns continue to evolve through
mapping experience in the target language, and that the resulting L2 form-function
relationships reflect both L1 and L2 structural properties.
By extending this line of reasoning, emergence of L2 morphological awareness
can be seen as a result of continual adjustments on automatically activated L1 mor-
phological awareness to accommodate the properties of morphemes specific to the
target language. Given the linguistic dependency of morphological awareness, it can
be hypothesized that the utility of L1 morphological awareness and other reading
subskills in L2 word reading and learning is determined in part by similarities
between two languages, as well as by knowledge of L2-specific morphological and
other linguistic properties.

Morphological awareness in L2 reading development

In recent years, considerable attention has been given to the utility of L1 mor-
phological awareness in L2 reading development. A growing body of research has
examined the contribution of L1 morphological awareness to L2 reading subskills,
including decoding (Geva & Wang, 2001; Ramirez, Chen, Geva, & Kiefer, 2010;
Wang, Ko, & Choi, 2009), vocabulary knowledge (Chen, Ramirez, Luo, & Ku, 2012;
Kieffer & Lesaux, 2012), word meaning inference (Zhang, 2010; Zhang & Koda,
2012), and reading comprehension (Jeon, 2011; Koda, Lu, & Zhang, 2013; Lam,
Chen, Geva, Luo, & Li, 2012; Wang et al., 2009; Zhang & Koda, 2013).
Reflecting the complexity of the construct, the findings are not always consist-
ent. For example, some studies found significant intra-lingual effects of morpho-
logical awareness only on decoding speed (Marcolini, Traficante, Zoccolotti, &
Burani, 2011), while others have shown its contributions to both decoding speed
and accuracy when whole word frequency and sub-lexical morpheme frequency
were controlled (Verhoeven & Schreuder, 2011). In examining cross-linguistic ef-
fects of morphological awareness, Ramirez et al. (2010) demonstrated a significant
direct contribution of L1 morphological awareness to L2 word reading in L1 dom-
inant Spanish-English bilingual children. It is less than certain to what extent such
cross-linguistic contributions of morphological awareness can be generalized to
other bilingual groups whose literacy learning involve two typologically distinct
languages and writing systems.
 Chapter 14. Cross-linguistic interaction in L2 word meaning inference 299

Zhang (2010), for example, investigated the relative shareability of two-word

formation processes (derivation and compounding) in Grade 6 Mandarin speak-
ing children learning English as a foreign language in China. His data revealed
that the two facets of morphological awareness were differentially related between
the two languages. Their cross-linguistic relationship was stronger in compound
awareness (used in both languages) than derivational awareness (dominant in L2).
He also found that L1 compound awareness contributed to L2 lexical inferenc-
ing only indirectly through L2 compound awareness and L1 lexical inferencing
ability, but such (indirect, yet significant) facilitation was not observable in L1
derivational awareness. His findings seem to suggest that the shareability of mor-
phological awareness and the resulting cross-linguistic contributions vary across
distinct awareness facets.
To summarize, previous research has shown (1) that morphological awareness
plays a critical role in word reading and learning; (2) that it emerges from experi-
ence of decoding and encoding morphemes in print; and (3) that L2 morpholog-
ical awareness emerges from continual cross-linguistic interactions between L1
morphological awareness and L2 linguistic input. Given the linguistic dependency
of morphological awareness, it is critical to explore how L2 linguistic knowledge
affects the utility of L2 morphological awareness in L2 reading development. The
sections that follow describe a summary of a study directly testing the hypothesized
effect of L2 linguistic knowledge on the formation of L2 morphological awareness
and its utility in word meaning inference.

The study

This study aimed to investigate the role of L2 morphological awareness in relation

to L1 reading ability and L2 linguistic knowledge as they contributed to L2 word
meaning inference among L1 Japanese learners of English as a foreign language
(EFL). In addition, it explored how differing levels of L2 linguistic knowledge im-
pacted these relationships. The study had the following research questions:
1. Do L1 Japanese EFL learners’ L1 reading ability and L2 linguistic knowledge
contribute directly to L2 word meaning inference, or are they mediated by L2
morphological awareness?
2. Does learners’ degree of L2 linguistic knowledge affect the relationships among
L1 reading ability, L2 linguistic knowledge, and L2 morphological awareness
as they contribute to L2 word meaning inference?
300 Keiko Koda and Ryan T. Miller

Method

Setting and participants

Data for the study were collected at a mid-sized (approximately 6,000 students)
private university in central Japan. In total, 182 EFL learners participated in the
research. The majority of the participants (170) were majoring in English, while
12 were majoring in Chinese. All participants were enrolled in EFL classes at the
time of the study. There were 92 females and 85 males, while 5 did not report their
gender. Most participants were in their first year (n = 90) or second year (n = 40) of
university, and the average age was 19.7 years (SD = 1.47). Most had begun formal
EFL learning in junior high school (grade 7), and at the time of the study, had been
studying EFL for approximately 8 years.

Instruments

L2 morphological awareness. In the present study, morphological awareness was de-

fined as the ability to segment words into their constituent morphemes. Participants
completed a morpheme counting task consisting of 60 items, including 9 mono-
morphemic words, 9 words with inflectional morphology (3 plural, 3 past tense,
and 3 continuous aspect), 5 with compound morphology, 16 with low-transparency
derivational morphology (with orthographic shifts), and 21 with high-transparency
derivational morphology (without orthographic shifts). Because this measure
sought to tap morphological awareness rather than tacit knowledge of morphemes,
only high-frequency affixes were used, based on Blevins (2001, cited in Kieffer &
Lesaux, 2007), Stahl and Shiel (1992), and Wurm (1997, 2000). Furthermore, a pi-
lot study was conducted with 34 L1 Japanese university EFL learners who did not
participate in the main study and participants’ English instructors were consulted
to confirm that affixes should be known to participants. The words were projected
onto a screen, and participants had five seconds to mark the number of morphemes
in each word. The reliability (Cronbach’s alpha) was .81.
L2 linguistic knowledge. Linguistic knowledge was operationalized as vocabu-
lary breadth and grammar knowledge. L2 vocabulary breadth was measured using
an adaptation of Schmitt, Schmitt, and Clapham’s (2001) version of the Vocabulary
Levels Test (VLT). The VLT is made up of a series of three-item groups, containing
three target words/phrases. Participants then choose from among six choices the
three words that best match the target words/phrases. Because words are presented
without contextual clues, the VLT is thought to be a purer measure of vocabulary
breadth than tasks that present words in context. The present study made use of a
shortened version of the VLT by Shiotsu (2003; Shiotsu & Weir, 2007), who trialed
 Chapter 14. Cross-linguistic interaction in L2 word meaning inference 301

the task extensively with L1 Japanese university students similar to the participants
in the present study, resulting in a smaller set of items with a high degree of reliabil-
ity. This version of the test has 60 items and participants were given 10 minutes to
complete the test. Cronbach’s alpha was .89. L2 grammar knowledge was measured
using a multiple-choice test from Shiotsu and Weir (2007). In that study, a grammar
test was developed which reduced confounds with other reading-related constructs
by minimizing the degree of meaning extraction necessary. Shiotsu and Weir’s
(2007) 35-item test was trialed extensively with L2 English learners in the UK and
evaluated by 10 experts in applied linguistics and 20 ESL teachers. In the present
study, Shiotsu and Weir’s test was further reduced to 25 items by removing 10 items
that showed low discrimination in a pilot study conducted with 45 L1 Japanese
university EFL students who did not participate in the present study. Cronbach’s
alpha was .60. A composite L2 linguistic knowledge score was calculated for each
participant using z-scores from the vocabulary and grammar measures.
L1 reading ability. Participants’ L1 Japanese reading ability was measured using
a rational cloze task (Yamashita, 2003). In this task, participants read an expository
text, an excerpt from the book Joho no Nawabari Riron (Territory of Information;
Kamio, 1990). The excerpt was 957 characters in length, and there were 30 blanks in
the cloze task (approximately 3% of the text). All target items were content words (as
recommended by Koda, 2005). Participants were given a word bank containing the
30 words that had been removed from the text, with an additional 20 filler words.
To increase reliability, the task was piloted with a group of 45 L1 Japanese university
EFL learners who did not participate in the study, and items that showed the least
discrimination were eliminated. Cronbach’s alpha was .73.
L2 word meaning inference. In the present study, L2 word meaning inference was
defined as making appropriate guesses as to the meanings of unknown morpholog-
ically complex words through integration of word-internal morphological informa-
tion and word-external contextual information (see also Brusnighan & Folk, 2012;
Hamada, 2014). Participants were presented with 16 short texts (mean length = 132
words, SD = 32.17, range: 92–216), each of which contained two unknown words
which were underlined (32 items in total). Participants were instructed to read the
texts for comprehension, and comprehension was confirmed using comprehension
question after each text. The unknown words were constructed from pseudo-word
roots that were five characters in length and followed English graphotactics, to which
real derivational prefixes and suffixes were added. High frequency affixes were used
(see above, in the description of the morphological awareness task, for how these
were determined). For each of the unknown words, participants were asked to
choose the best meaning from among four choices, one which incorporated con-
textual but not morphological information, one which incorporated morphological
but not contextual information, one which incorporated both morphological and
302 Keiko Koda and Ryan T. Miller

contextual information, and one which incorporated neither (see Mori & Nagy,
1999 and Zhang, 2015 for similar tasks measuring L2 word meaning inference in
Japanese and Chinese, respectively). Cronbach’s alpha was .71.

Analysis

The data were analyzed using SPSS v.21 to calculate means and standard devia-
tions of all variables and correlations among them. Then, recursive path analysis
(Wolfle, 1980) was conducted using AMOS v.21 in order to determine direct and
indirect effects. Together with path analysis, bootstrapping was also performed.
Bootstrapping is a data-based simulation method that produces a large number
of samples (1000) using replacement data, and parameter estimates are computed
for each sample. Bootstrapping avoids potential issues arising from non-normal
data and also provides more stable estimates of path coefficients (Schumacker &
Lomax, 2010). In addition, bootstrapping allows significance testing of indirect ef-
fects by providing a distribution for these indirect effects. In order to retain power,
bias-corrected bootstrapping was used, as suggested by Hayes and Scharkow (2013).

Results

Examining the collected data, 15 participants’ data was found to be incomplete,

and 10 participants reported speaking a language other than Japanese at home.
These participants’ data were removed from the dataset, leaving a final sample of
157 participants. Table 1 shows descriptive statistics of the raw scores and bivariate
correlations between each of the variables. All variables significantly and positively
correlated with all other variables, except for the correlation between L1 reading
and L2 grammar knowledge (p = .05).

Table 1. Descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations

1 2 3 4 5 M SD
1. L2 MA – 41.96 6.68
2. L2 V .390** – 21.33 9.24
3. L2 G .267** .465** – 10.37 3.51
4. L1 R .371** .247** .157† – 7.14 3.28
5. L2 INF .217** .595** .338** .189* – 10.01 4.48

Note: MA morphological awareness, V vocabulary knowledge, G grammar knowledge, R reading ability,

INF word meaning inference.
† p = .05, * p < .05, ** p < .01
 Chapter 14. Cross-linguistic interaction in L2 word meaning inference 303

To answer the first research question, about effects of L1 reading ability and L2
linguistic knowledge on L2 word meaning inference, both directly and mediated
by L2 morphological awareness, a path model was constructed. After optimizing
the model by removing non-significant paths, the model showed good fit, χ2 (2, N =
157) = 0.475, p = .788 (CFI = 1.000; RMSEA = .000, 90% CI = .000, .102). Overall,
the path model predicted approximately 35% of the variance in L2 word meaning
inference.
Table 2 shows all direct and indirect parameter estimates. There was a sig-
nificant direct effect of L2 linguistic knowledge on L2 word meaning inference
(β = .573, z = 7.494, p < .001). However, the direct effect of L1 reading on L2 word
meaning inference was non-significant (β = .040, z = 0.578, p = .563), as was the
effect of L2 morphological awareness (β = .015, z = 0.190, p = .850). Because of
the lack of a significant effect of L2 morphological awareness, the indirect effects
of L1 reading and L2 linguistic knowledge on L2 word meaning inference were
also non-significant (β = .004, z = 0.172, p = .817 and β = .007, z = 0.200, p = .789,
respectively).

Table 2. Parameter estimates between L2 morphological awareness, L2 linguistic

knowledge, L1 reading, and L2 word meaning inference
Paths Direct effects Indirect effects
β z p R2 β z p
L2 MA .348
← L1 R .257 3.848 < .001 – – –
← L2 LK .470 7.044 < .001 – – –
L2 INF .351
← L1 R .040 0.578   .563 .004 0.172 .817
← L2 LK .573 7.494 < .001 .007 0.200 .789
← L2 MA .015 0.190   .850 – – –
L1 R
↔ L2 LK .250 3.030   .002 – – –

Note: MA morphological analysis, R reading ability, LK linguistic knowledge, INF word meaning inference

The second research question asked whether L2 linguistic knowledge moderated

the relationships among L1 reading ability, L2 morphological awareness, and L2
word meaning inference. To answer this question, multiple-group path analysis was
conducted. Participants were divided into a higher L2 linguistic knowledge group
(n = 72) and a lower L2 linguistic knowledge group (n = 85) based on z-scores, and
the path models of the two groups were compared.
Table 3 shows the parameter estimates for the lower L2 linguistic knowledge
group. Together, the variables predicted only 9.3% of the variance in L2 word
304 Keiko Koda and Ryan T. Miller

meaning inference. The results were similar to those for the whole group, with L2
linguistic knowledge showing a significant and positive direct effect on L2 word
meaning inference (β = .276, z = 2.402, p = .031) and the direct effect of L1 reading
being non-significant (β = .101, z = 0.909, p = .363).
In addition, there was a significant negative effect of L2 morphological aware-
ness on L2 word meaning inference (β = −.251, z = −2.151, p = .016); as a result,
the indirect contributions of L1 reading and L2 linguistic knowledge through L2
morphological awareness were also negative (β = −.060, z = −1.428, p = .040 and
β = −.084, z = −1.633, p = .022, respectively). Thus, the results for the lower L2
linguistic knowledge group indicate that although there was a cross-linguistic ef-
fect (as shown by the significant positive effect of L1 reading on L2 morphological
awareness), lower L2 linguistic knowledge might have prevented the utilization of
these skills for L2 word meaning inference.

Table 3. Parameter estimates for the lower L2 linguistic knowledge group (n = 85)
Paths Direct effects Indirect effects
β z p R2 β z p
L2 MA .210
← L1 R .237 2.357   .018 – – –
← L2 LK .334 3.315 < .001 – – –
L2 INF .093
← L1 R .101 0.909   .363 −.060 −1.428 .040
← L2 LK .276 2.402   .031 −.084 −1.633 .022
← L2 MA −.251 −2.151   .016 – – –
L1 R
↔ L2 LK .267 2.195   .018 – – –

Note: MA morphological analysis, R reading ability, LK linguistic knowledge, INF word meaning inference

The direct and indirect parameter estimates for the higher L2 linguistic knowledge
group are presented in Table 4. Among the higher L2 linguistic knowledge group,
the model predicted 36% of the variance in L2 word meaning inference.
Similar to the lower L2 linguistic knowledge group, the direct effect of L2
linguistic knowledge on L2 word meaning inference was positive and significant
(β = .449, z = 4.389, p < .001), and the direct effect of L1 reading was non-significant
(β = .015, z = 0.147, p = .883).
However, different from the previous analyses, L2 morphological awareness
had a significant positive effect on L2 word meaning inference (β = .257, z = 2.369,
p = .018). Furthermore, both L1 reading and L2 linguistic knowledge had signifi-
cant positive indirect effects on L2 word meaning inference through their contri-
butions to L2 morphological awareness (β = .081, z = 2.000, p = .007 and β = .083,
 Chapter 14. Cross-linguistic interaction in L2 word meaning inference 305

Table 4. Parameter estimates for the higher L2 linguistic knowledge group (n = 72)
Paths Direct effects Indirect effects
β z p R2 β z p
L2 MA .230
← L1 R .316 3.004   .003 – – –
← L2 LK .323 3.074   .002 – – –
L2 INF .356
← L1 R .015 0.147   .883 .081 2.000 .007
← L2 LK .449 4.389 < .001 .083 2.091 .004
← L2 MA .257 2.369   .018 – – –
L1 R
↔ L2 LK .126 1.056   .291 – – –

Note: MA morphological analysis, R reading ability, LK linguistic knowledge, INF word meaning inference

z = 2.091, p = .004, respectively). These findings suggest that, different from the
lower L2 linguistic knowledge group, among the higher L2 linguistic knowledge
group, L2 morphological analysis had a significant positive effect on L2 word mean-
ing inference, and this effect allowed transferred L1 reading skills to impact L2
word meaning inference indirectly through their contribution to L2 morphological
awareness.
Figure 1 shows a schematic of the relationships among the variables for both
the lower and higher L2 linguistic knowledge groups. Taken together, the results
suggest that L1 reading competencies consistently impacted L2 morphological
awareness. However, without a requisite level of L2 linguistic knowledge, these
transferred competencies could not be utilized for L2 word meaning inference.

L1 R
.10/.01
.24/.32
.21/.23 .09/.36
–.25/.26
.27/.13 L2 MA L2 INF

.33/.32 .28/.45

L2 LK

Figure 1. A schematic diagram of the results. Numbers on the left are the parameter
estimates for the lower L2 linguistic knowledge group; numbers on the right are estimates
for the higher L2 linguistic knowledge group
306 Keiko Koda and Ryan T. Miller

Discussion

This study investigated relationships among L1 reading ability, L2 morphological

awareness, and L2 linguistic knowledge as they contribute to L2 word meaning in-
ference among L1 Japanese EFL learners. To do this, we made use of recursive path
analysis in order to investigate both direct and indirect effects. Overall, the results
showed a coalescence of reading sub-skills, both within and across languages, in
their contributions to L2 word meaning inference.
The first research question asked whether the contributions of L1 reading abil-
ity and L2 linguistic knowledge to L2 word meaning inference were direct effects,
or whether they were mediated by L2 morphological awareness. The results from
the full sample found only a direct effect of L2 linguistic knowledge on L2 word
meaning inference, and neither a direct nor an indirect effect of L1 reading ability.
However, L1 reading ability was found to be a significant predictor of L2 morpho-
logical awareness. The finding that contributions of L2 linguistic knowledge to L2
reading outcomes (in this case, word meaning inference) were greater than the con-
tributions of L1 reading mirrors a number of previous studies that have investigated
similar variables, particularly in EFL contexts (e.g., Haynes & Carr, 1990; Lee &
Schallert, 1997; Yamashita & Shiotsu, 2017), as well as Jeon and Yamashita’s (2014)
meta-analysis, which showed that components related to L2 linguistic knowledge
accounted for L2 reading more than L1 reading did.
However, we did see a consistent and strong positive contribution of L1 read-
ing to L2 morphological awareness. This is consistent with previous studies of
cross-linguistic transfer of reading subskills, particularly morphological aware-
ness (e.g., Jeon, 2011; Lam, Chen, Geva, Luo, & Li, 2012; Zhang & Koda, 2012).
In the present study, L1 reading had a considerably stronger relationship with L2
morphological awareness than with any other variables, as shown in the bivariate
correlations (r = .371, p < .01, all other rs < .247) and in the positive significant di-
rect effects across all of the path models, suggesting that morphological awareness
may be a shareable resource across the two languages. This finding is interesting
especially in light of the substantial differences in morphological structure between
Japanese and English, suggesting that morphological awareness may be a shareable
resource even among typologically disparate languages. The full mediation of L1
reading by L2 morphological awareness is especially interesting in the present study
in light of the task used to measure L1 reading, a gap-filling task, which could be
expected to have more similarity with word meaning inference. Nonetheless, L1
reading most strongly contributed to L2 morphological awareness.
The findings also demonstrate that although morphological awareness may
be shareable across languages, there is nonetheless a degree of linguistic knowl-
edge required in order to make use of this shared resource. As described earlier,
 Chapter 14. Cross-linguistic interaction in L2 word meaning inference 307

morphological awareness is less independent of linguistic knowledge than other

types of metalinguistic awareness, such as phonological awareness. The comparison
in the present study of participants with differing degrees of L2 linguistic knowledge
showed that utilization of morphological awareness (and the transferred L1 compe-
tencies) for word meaning inference was dependent upon L2 linguistic knowledge.
That is, without a requisite amount of L2 linguistic knowledge, the L2 learners were
unable to make use of their morphological awareness for word meaning inference,
even though morphological awareness still received significant contributions from
L1 reading ability and L2 linguistic knowledge. This result is similar to those of
previous studies that suggested that a threshold level of L2 linguistic knowledge
is necessary for making use of L1 reading skills, or, alternatively, that a lack of L2
linguistic knowledge short-circuits the use of L1 reading skills for L2 reading (e.g.,
Bernhardt, 2005; Bernhardt & Kamil, 1995; Clarke,, 1980; Cummins, 2000; Lee &
Schallert, 1997; Yamashita & Shiotsu, 2017). In the present study, it was found that
L2 linguistic knowledge might constrain the utilization of shared resources such
as morphological awareness.

Summary conclusions

In this chapter, we have discussed the importance of metalinguistic awareness,

particularly morphological awareness, as a shareable resource for second language
reading. Through cumulative experience and exposure to text in their L1, readers
develop an awareness of linguistic structure that is abstract in nature and which
can be utilized when reading in later-acquired languages. Thus, a reader’s morpho-
logical awareness that is developed through input in their L1 may be a shareable
resource for L2 reading and learning as well. As shown in the study reported here,
this may also occur across languages with disparate writing systems and morpho-
logical structures, though with the requirement that the L2 reader have a certain
amount of linguistic knowledge in the L2 in order to utilize the shared resources.
The findings reported here underscore the importance of conceptualizing read-
ing as a multi-componential system when exploring cross-linguistic interactions
in L2 reading development. As a complex information processing system, reading
involves a number of distinct mechanisms working in unison to construct meaning
from text. Reading in an L2 additionally implies the involvement of two or more
languages working together in this multi-componential system. Research such as
the study reported here illustrates the complex cross-linguistic interactions that
occur between L1 competencies and L2 linguistic knowledge as L2 learners’ reading
skills develop.
308 Keiko Koda and Ryan T. Miller

References

Abu-Rabia, S. (1995) Learning to read in Arabic: Reading, syntactic, orthographic and work-
ing memory skills in normally achieving and poor Arabic readers. Reading Psychology, 16,
351–394. doi: 10.1080/0270271950160401
Bear, D. R., Invernizzi, M., Templeton, S., & Johnston, F. (1996). Words their way: Word study for
phonics vocabulary, and spelling instruction. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.
Beijing Language Institute. (1986). Dictionary of usage frequency of modern Chinese words.
Beijing, P.R. China.
Berko, J. (1958). The child’s learning of English morphology. Word, 14, 150–177.
doi: 10.1080/00437956.1958.11659661
Bernhardt, E. (2005). Progress and procrastination in second language reading. Annual Review
of Applied Linguistics, 25, 133–150. doi: 10.1017/S0267190505000073
Bernhardt, E. B., & Kamil, M. L. (1995). Interpreting relationships between L1 and L2 read-
ing: Consolidating the linguistic threshold and the linguistic interdependence hypotheses.
Applied Linguistics, 16, 15–34. doi: 10.1093/applin/16.1.15
Brusnighan, S. M., & Folk, J. R. (2012). Combining contextual and morphemic cues is beneficial
during incidental vocabulary acquisition: Semantic transparency in novel compound word
processing. Reading Research Quarterly, 47, 172–190.
Chilant, D., & Caramazza, A. (1995). Where is morphology and how is it processed? The case of
written word recognition. In L. B. Feldman (Ed.), Morphological aspects of language process-
ing (pp. 55–76). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Carlisle, J. F. (2003). Morphology matters in learning to read: A commentary. Reading Psychology,
24, 291–322. doi: 10.1080/02702710390227369
Chen, X., Hao, M., Geva, E., Zhu, J., & Shu, H. (2009). The role of compound awareness in
Chinese children’s vocabulary acquisition and character reading. Reading and Writing, 22,
615–631. doi: 10.1007/s11145-008-9127-9
Chen, X., Ramirez, G., Luo, Y. C., Geva, E., & Ku, Y-M. (2012). Comparing vocabulary develop-
ment in Spanish- and Chinese-speaking ELLs: the effects of metalinguistic and sociocultural
factors. Reading and Writing, 25, 1991–2020. doi: 10.1007/s11145-011-9318-7
Clarke, M. A. (1980). The short circuit hypothesis of ESL reading – or when language competence
interferes with reading performance. Modern Language Journal, 64, 203–209.
Cummins, J. (2000). Language, power, and pedagogy: Bilingual children in the crossfire. Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters.
Da Fontoura, H. A., & Siegel, L. S. (1995). Reading syntactic and memory skills of Portuguese-English
Canadian children. Reading and Writing, 7, 139–153. doi: 10.1007/BF01026951
Duques, S. L. (1989). Grammatical deficiencies in writing: An investigation of learning disabled
college students. Reading and Writing, 1, 309–325. doi: 10.1007/BF00386264
Durgunoglu, A. Y., Nagy, W. E., & Hancin, B. J. (1993). Cross-language transfer of phonemic
awareness. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 453–465. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.85.3.453
Ehri, L. C. (2014). Orthographic mapping in the acquisition of sight word reading, spelling mem-
ory, and vocabulary learning. Scientific Studies of Reading, 18, 5–21.
doi: 10.1080/10888438.2013.819356
Ellis, N. (2002). Frequency effects in language processing: A review with implications for theories
of implicit and explicit language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24,
143–188. doi: 10.1017/S0272263102002024
 Chapter 14. Cross-linguistic interaction in L2 word meaning inference 309

Feldman, L. B., Frost, R., Pnini, T. (1995). Decomposition words into their constituent mor-
phemes: Evidence from English and Hebrew. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning,
Memory and Cognition, 21, 1–14.
Fowler, A. E., & Liberman, I. Y. (1995). The role of phonology and orthography in morphological
awareness. In L. B. Feldman (Ed.), Morphological aspects of language processing (pp. 157–
188). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Frost, R. (2012). Towards a universal model of reading. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 35,
263–329. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X11001841
Frost, R., Katz, L., & Bentin, S. (1987). Strategies for visual word recognition and orthographic
depth: A multilingual comparison. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception
and Performance, 13, 104–115.
Geva, E. (2008). Facets of metalinguistic awareness related to reading development in Hebrew:
Evidence from monolingual and bilingual and bilingual children. In K. Koda & A. M. Zehler
(Eds.), Learning to read across languages: Cross-linguistic relationships in first and second
language literacy development (pp. 154–187). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Geva, E., & Siegel, L. S. (2000). Orthographic and cognitive factors in the concurrent development
of basic reading skills in two languages. Reading and Writing, 12, 1–30.
doi: 10.1023/A:1008017710115
Geva, E., & Wang, M. (2001). The development of basic reading skills in children: A cross-language
perspective. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 21, 182–204. doi: 10.1017/S0267190501000113
Gholamain, M., & Geva, E. (1999). The concurrent development of word recognition skills in
English and Farsi. Language Learning, 49, 183–217. doi: 10.1111/0023-8333.00087
Hamada, M. (2014). The role of morphological and contextual information in L2 lexical inference.
Modern Language Journal, 98, 992–1005. doi: 10.1111/modl.12151
Hayes, A. F., & Scharkow, M. (2013). The relative trustworthiness of inferential tests of the indirect
effect in statistical mediation analysis: Does method really matter? Psychological Science, 24,
1918–1927. doi: 10.1177/0956797613480187
Haynes, M., & Carr, T. H. (1990). Writing system background and second language reading: A
component skills analysis of English reading by native speaker-readers of Chinese. In T. H.
Carr (Ed.), Reading and its development: component skills approaches (pp. 375–421). San
Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Jeon, E. H. (2011). Contribution of morphological awareness to L2 reading comprehension.
Modern Language Journal, 95, 217–235. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2011.01179.x
Jeon, E. H., & Yamashita, J. (2014). L2 Reading comprehension and its correlates: A meta‐analysis.
Language Learning, 64, 160–212.
Kamio, A. (1990). Joho no nawabari riron (Territory of Information). Tokyo: Taishukan.
Kieffer, M. J., & Lesaux, N. K. (2007). Breaking down words to build meaning: Morphology,
vocabulary, and reading comprehension in the urban classroom. The Reading Teacher, 61,
134–144. doi: 10.1598/RT.61.2.3
Kieffer, M. J., & Lesaux, N. K. (2012). Development of morphological awareness and vocabulary
knowledge in Spanish-speaking language minority learners: A parallel process latent growth
curve model. Applied Psycholinguistics, 33, 23–54. doi: 10.1017/S0142716411000099
Koda, K. (2005). Insights into second language reading. Cambridge: CUP.
doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139524841
Koda, K. (2007). Reading and language learning: Cross-linguistic constraints on second-language
reading development. Language Learning, 57, 1–44. doi: 10.1111/0023-8333.101997010-i1
310 Keiko Koda and Ryan T. Miller

Koda, K., Lu, C., & Zhang, D. (2013). The role of metalinguistic awareness in biliteracy develop-
ment. X. Chen, Q Wang, C. L. Yang (Eds.), Reading development and difficulties in monolin-
gual and bilingual Chinese children (pp.141–170). New York, NY: Springer.
Ku, Y-M., & Anderson, R. C. (2003). Development of morphological awareness in Chinese and
English. Reading and Writing, 16, 399–422. doi: 10.1023/A:1024227231216
Lam, K., Chen, X., Geva, E., Luo, Y. C., & Li, H. (2012). The role of morphological awareness in
reading achievement among young Chinese-speaking English language learners: A longitu-
dinal study. Reading and Writing, 25, 1847–1872. doi: 10.1007/s11145-011-9329-4
Lee, J.-W., & Schallert, D. L. (1997). The relative contribution of L2 language proficiency and
L1 reading ability to L2 reading performance: A test of the threshold hypothesis in an EFL
context. TESOL Quarterly, 31, 713–739. doi: 10.2307/3587757
Liu, P. & McBride-Chang, C. (2010). What is morphological awareness? Tapping lexical com-
pounding awareness in Chinese third graders. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 62–73.
doi: 10.1037/a0016933
Logan, G. D. (1988). Toward an instance theory of automatization. Psychological Review, 95,
492–527. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.95.4.492
MacWhinney, B. & Bates, E. (Eds.). (1989). The crosslinguistic study of sentence processing.
Cambridge: CUP.
Marcolini, S., Traficante, D., Zoccolotti, P., & Burani, C. (2011). Word frequency modulates
morpheme-based reading in poor and skilled Italian readers. Applied Psycholinguistics, 32,
513–532. doi: 10.1017/S0142716411000191
Mori, Y., & Nagy, W. (1999). Integration of information from context and word elements in interpret-
ing novel Kanji compounds. Reading Research Quarterly, 34, 80–101. doi: 10.1598/RRQ.34.1.5
Nunes, T., & Bryant, P. (2006). Improving literacy by teaching morphemes. London: Routledge.
Nunes, T., Bryant, P., & Bindman, M. (2006). The effects of learning to spell on children’s aware-
ness of morphology. Reading and Writing, 19, 767–787. doi: 10.1007/s11145-006-9025-y
Ramirez, G., Chen, X., Geva, E., & Kiefer, H. (2010). Morphological awareness in Spanish-speaking
English language learners: Within and cross-language effects on word reading. Reading and
Writing, 23, 337–358. doi: 10.1007/s11145-009-9203-9
Rubin, H. (1991). Morphological knowledge and writing ability. In R. M. Joshi (Ed.), Written
language disorders (pp. 43–69). Dordrecht: Kluwer. doi: 10.1007/978-94-011-3732-4_3
Schmitt, N., Schmitt, D., & Clapham, C. (2001). Developing and exploring the behaviour of two
new versions of the Vocabulary Levels Test. Language Testing, 18, 55–88.
Schumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (2010). A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling (3rd
ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Share, D. (2008). On the Anglocentricities of current reading research and practice: The perils
and overrelieance on an “outlier” orthography. Psychological Bulletin, 134, 584–615.
doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.134.4.584
Shiotsu, T. (2003). Linguistic knowledge and processing efficiency as predictors of L2 reading abil-
ity: A component skills analysis (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Reading.
Shiotsu, T., & Weir, C. J. (2007). The relative significance of syntactic knowledge and vocabulary
breadth in the prediction of reading comprehension test performance. Language Testing, 24,
99–128. doi: 10.1177/0265532207071513
Shu, H., Anderson, R. C., & Zhang, H. (1995). Incidental learning of word meanings while read-
ing: A Chinese and American cross-cultural study. Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 76–95.
doi: 10.2307/747745
 Chapter 14. Cross-linguistic interaction in L2 word meaning inference 311

Stahl, S. A., & Shiel, T. G. (1992). Teaching meaning vocabulary: Productive approaches for poor
readers. Reading and Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 8, 223–241.
doi: 10.1080/0748763920080206
Stolz, J. A., and Feldman, L. B. (1995). The role of orthographic and semantic transparency of the
base morpheme in morphological processing. In L. B. Feldman (Ed.), Morphological aspects
of language processing (109–129). Hillsdale, NJ. Erlbaum.
Taft, M. (1991). Reading and the mental lexicon. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Taft, M. (1994). Interactive activation as a framework for understanding morphological process-
ing. Language & Cognitive Processes, 9, 271–294. doi: 10.1080/01690969408402120
Taft, M., & Zhu, X. P. (1995). The representation of bound morphemes in the lexicon: A Chinese
study. In L. B. Feldman (Ed.), Morphological aspects of language processing (pp. 109–129).
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Tolchinsky L., & Teberosky, A. (1998). The development of word segmentation and writing in two
scripts. Cognitive Development, 13, 1–25. doi: 10.1016/S0885-2014(98)90018-1
Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Tyler, A., & Nagy, W. (1989). The acquisition of English derivational morphology. Journal of
Memory and Language, 28, 649–667. doi: 10.1016/0749-596X(89)90002-8
Tyler, A., & Nagy, W. (1990). Use of derivational morphology during reading. Cognition, 36,
17–34. doi: 10.1016/0010-0277(90)90052-L
Van Valin, R. D. (1991). Functionalist linguistic theory and language acquisition. First Language,
11, 7–40. doi: 10.1177/014272379101103102
Verhoeven, L., & Schreuder, R. (2011). Morpheme frequency effects in Dutch complex word
reading: A developmental perspective. Applied Psycholinguistics, 32, 483–498.
doi: 10.1017/S0142716411000178
Wade-Woolley, L., & Geva, E. (2000) Processing novel phonemic contrasts in the acquisition of
L2 word reading. Scientific Studies of Reading, 4, 295–311. doi: 10.1207/S1532799XSSR0404_3
Wang, M., Ko, I. Y., & Choi, J. (2009). The importance of morphological awareness in
Korean-English biliteracy acquisition. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 34, 132–142.
doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2008.12.002
Wang, M., Lin, C., & Gao, W. (2010). Bilingual compound processing: The effects of constituent
frequency and semantic transparency. Writing Systems Research, 2, 117–137.
doi: 10.1093/wsr/wsq012
Wang, M., Perfetti, C. A., & Liu, Y. (2005). Chinese-English biliteracy acquisition: Cross-language
and writing system transfer. Cognition, 97, 67–88. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2004.10.001
Wolfle, L. M. (1980). Strategies of path analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 17,
183–209. doi: 10.3102/00028312017002183
Wurm, L. H. (1997). Auditory processing of prefixed English words is both continuous and
decompositional. Journal of Memory and Language, 37, 438–461. doi: 10.1006/jmla.1997.2524
Wurm, L. H. (2000). Auditory processing of polymorphemic pseudowords. Journal of Memory
and Language, 42, 255–271. doi: 10.1006/jmla.1999.2678
Yamashita, J. (2003). Processes of taking a gap-filling test: Comparison of skilled and less skilled
EFL readers. Language Testing, 20, 267–293. doi: 10.1191/0265532203lt257oa
Yamashita, J., & Shiotsu, T. (2017). Comprehension and knowledge components that predict L2
reading: A latent-trait approach. Applied Linguistics, 38, 43–67.
312 Keiko Koda and Ryan T. Miller

Zhang, B., & Peng, D. (1992). Decomposed storage in the Chinese lexicon. In H-C. Chen &
O. J. L. Tzeng (Eds.), Language processing in Chinese (pp. 131–149). Amsterdam: North-
Holland. doi: 10.1016/S0166-4115(08)61890-7
Zhang, D. (2010). Print experiences, transfer of L1 morphological awareness and development of L2
lexical inference ability in young EFL readers (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Carnegie
Mellon University.
Zhang, D., & Koda, K. (2012). Morphological awareness, lexical inferencing vocabulary knowl-
edge and L2 reading comprehension: Testing direct and indirect effects. Reading and Writing,
25, 1195–1216. doi: 10.1007/s11145-011-9313-z
Zhang, D., & Koda, K. (2013). Morphological awareness and reading comprehension in a foreign
language: A study of young Chinese EFL learners. System, 41, 901–931.
doi: 10.1016/j.system.2013.09.009
Zhang, H. S. (2015). Morphological awareness in vocabulary acquisition among Chinese-speaking
children: Testing partial mediation via lexical inference ability. Reading Research Quarterly,
50, 129–142.
Zhou, X., & Marslen-Wilson, W. (1994). Words, morphemes, and syllables in the Chinese men-
tal lexicon. Language and Cognitive Processes, 9, 393–422. doi: 10.1080/01690969408402125